OT-LAW.filter - rwp prejudice:

rwp@1Corinthians:8:7 @{Howbeit in all men there is not that knowledge} (\all' ouk en pasin h gnsis\). The knowledge (\h gnsis\) of which Paul is speaking. Knowledge has to overcome inheritance and environment, prejudice, fear, and many other hindrances. {Being used until now to the idol} (\ti suntheii hes arti tou eidlou\). Old word \suntheia\ from \sunths\ (\sun, thos\), accustomed to, like Latin _consuetudo_, intimacy. In N.T. only here and strkjv@John:18:39; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:16|. It is the force of habit that still grips them when they eat such meat. They eat it "as an idol sacrifice" (\hs eidlothuton\), though they no longer believe in idols. The idol-taint clings in their minds to this meat. {Being weak} (\asthens ousa\). "It is defiled, not by the partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mark:7:18f.; strkjv@Luke:11:41|), but by the doing of something which the unenlightened conscience does not allow" (Robertson and Plummer). For this great word \suneidsis\ (conscientia, knowing together, conscience) see on ¯Acts:23:1|. It is important in Paul's Epistles, Peter's First Epistle, and Hebrews. Even if unenlightened, one must act according to his conscience, a sensitive gauge to one's spiritual condition. Knowledge breaks down as a guide with the weak or unenlightened conscience. For \asthens\, weak (lack of strength) see on ¯Matthew:26:41|. {Defiled} (\molunetai\). Old word \molun\, to stain, pollute, rare in N.T. (1Timothy:3:9; strkjv@Revelation:3:4|).

rwp@1Corinthians:8:8 @{Will not commend} (\ou parastsei\). Future active indicative of \paristmi\, old word to present as in strkjv@Acts:1:3; strkjv@Luke:2:22; strkjv@Colossians:1:28|. Food (\brma\) will not give us an entree to God for commendation or condemnation, whether meat-eaters or vegetarians. {Are we the worse} (\husteroumetha\). Are we left behind, do we fall short. Both conditions are of the third class (\ean m, ean\) undetermined. {Are we the better} (\perisseuometha\). Do we overflow, do we have excess of credit. Paul here disposes of the pride of knowledge (the enlightened ones) and the pride of prejudice (the unenlightened). Each was disposed to look down upon the other, the one in scorn of the other's ignorance, the other in horror of the other's heresy and daring.

rwp@1Timothy:5:21 @{The elect angels} (\tn eklektn aggeln\). For this triad of God, Christ, angels, see strkjv@Luke:9:26|. "Elect" in the sense of the "holy" angels who kept their own principality (Jude:1:6|) and who did not sin (2Peter:2:4|). Paul shows his interest in angels in strkjv@1Corinthians:4:9; strkjv@11:10|. {Observe} (\phulaxis\). First aorist active subjunctive of \phulass\, to guard, to keep (Romans:2:26|). Subfinal use of \hina\. {Without prejudice} (\chris prokrimatos\). Late and rare word (from \prokin\, to judge beforehand), three times in the papyri, here only in N.T. "Without prejudgment." {By partiality} (\kata prosklisin\). Late word from \prosklin\, to incline towards one (Acts:5:36|), only here in N.T.

rwp@2Corinthians:4:2 @{But we have renounced} (\alla apeipametha\). Indirect middle second aorist (timeless aorist) indicative of \apeipon\ (defective verb) with \a\ of first aorist ending, to speak forth, to speak off or away from. Common verb in the active, but rare in middle and only here in N.T. {The hidden things of shame} (\ta krupta ts aischuns\). They do attack the minister. His only safety is in instant and courageous defiance to all the powers of darkness. It is a terrible thing to see a preacher caught in the toils of the tempter. {In craftiness} (\en panourgii\). Old word from \panourgos\ (\pan, ergon\), a doer of any deed (good or bad), clever, cunning, deceitful. See on ¯Luke:20:23|. {Handling deceitfully} (\dolountes\). Present active participle of \dolo\, from \dolos\, deceit (from \del\, to catch with bait), old and common verb, in papyri and inscriptions, to ensnare, to corrupt with error. Only here in N.T. Used of adulterating gold or wine. {To every conscience of men} (\pros psan suneidsin anthrpn\). Not to whim, foible, prejudice. See strkjv@3:1-6| for "commending" (\sunistanontes\).

rwp@2Corinthians:5:17 @{A new creature} (\kain ktisis\). A fresh start is made (\kain\). \Ktisis\ is the old word for the act of creating (Romans:1:20|), but in N.T. by metonymy it usually bears the notion of \ktisma\, the thing created or creature as here. {The old things are passed away} (\ta archaia parlthen\). Did pass by, he means. Second aorist active of \parerchomai\, to go by. The ancient (\archaia\) way of looking at Christ among other things. And yet today there are scholars who are trying to revive the old prejudiced view of Jesus Christ as a mere man, a prophet, to give us "a reduced Christ." That was once Paul's view, but it passed by forever for him. It is a false view and leaves us no gospel and no Saviour. {Behold, they are become new} (\idou, gegone kaina\). Perfect active indicative of \ginomai\, have become new (fresh, \kaina\) to stay so.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Acts:6:11 @{Then they suborned men} (\tote hupebalon andras\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupoball\, old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one's control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. _Subornaverunt_. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. {Blasphemous words against Moses and God} (\blasphma eis Musn kai ton theon\). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See strkjv@Matthew:12:31| for discussion of the word \blasphmia, blasphme, blasphmos\, all in the N.T. from \blapt\, to harm, and \phm\, speech, harmful speech, or \blax\, stupid, and \phm\. But the charge against Stephen was untrue. Please note that Moses is here placed before God and practically on a par with God in the matter of blasphemy. The purpose of this charge is to stir the prejudices of the people in the matter of Jewish rights and privileges. It is the Pharisees who are conducting this attack on Stephen while the Sadducees had led them against Peter and John. The position of Stephen is critical in the extreme for the Sadducees will not help him as Gamaliel did the apostles.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:16:20 @{Unto the magistrates} (\tois stratgois\). Greek term (\stratos, ag\) for leader of an army or general. But in civic life a governor. The technical name for the magistrates in a Roman colony was _duumviri_ or duumvirs, answering to consuls in Rome. \Stratgoi\ here is the Greek rendering of the Latin _praetores_ (praetors), a term which they preferred out of pride to the term _duumviri_. Since they represented consuls, the praetors or duumvirs were accompanied by lictors bearing rods (verse 35|). {These men} (\houtoi hoi anthrpoi\). Contemptuous use. {Being Jews} (\Ioudaioi huparchontes\). The people of Philippi, unlike those in Antioch (11:26|), did not recognize any distinction between Jews and Christians. These four men were Jews. This appeal to race prejudice would be especially pertinent then because of the recent decree of Claudius expelling Jews from Rome (18:2|). It was about A.D. 49 or 50 that Paul is in Philippi. The hatred of the Jews by the Romans is known otherwise (Cicero, _Pro Flacco_, XXVIII; Juvenal, XIV. 96-106). {Do exceedingly trouble} (\ektarassousin\). Late compound (effective use of \ek\ in composition) and only here in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:16:22 @{Rose up together} (\sunepest\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of the double compound \sunephistmi\, intransitive, old verb, but only here in the N.T. (cf. \katepestsan\ in strkjv@18:12|). There was no actual attack of the mob as Paul and Silas were in the hands of the officers, but a sudden and violent uprising of the people, the appeal to race and national prejudice having raised a ferment. {Rent their garments off them} (\perirxantes autn ta himatia\). First aorist active participle of \perirgnumi\, old verb, to break off all around, to strip or rend all round. Here only in the N.T. The duumvirs probably gave orders for Paul and Silas to be stripped of their outer garments (\himatia\), though not actually doing it with their own hands, least of all not stripping off their own garments in horror as Ramsay thinks. That would call for the middle voice. In II Macc. strkjv@4:38 the active voice is used as here of stripping off the garments of others. Paul in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:2| refers to the shameful treatment received in Philippi, "insulted" (\hubristhentas\). As a Roman citizen this was unlawful, but the duumvirs looked on Paul and Silas as vagabond and seditious Jews and "acted with the highhandedness characteristic of the fussy provincial authorities" (Knowling). {Commanded} (\ekeleuon\). Imperfect active, repeatedly ordered. The usual formula of command was: "Go, lictors; strip off their garments; let them be scourged." {To beat them with rods} (\rhabdizein\). Present active infinitive of \rhabdiz\, old verb, but in the N.T.=_virgis caedere_ only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25| where Paul alludes to this incident and two others not given by Luke (\tris erhabdisthn\). He came near getting another in Jerusalem (Acts:22:25|). Why did not Paul say here that he was a Roman citizen as he does later (verse 37|) and in Jerusalem (22:26f.|)? It might have done no good in this hubbub and no opportunity was allowed for defence of any kind.

rwp@Acts:17:11 @{More noble than those} (\eugenesteroi tn\). Comparative form of \eugens\, old and common adjective, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:19:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26|. Followed by ablative case \tn\ as often after the comparative. {With all readiness of mind} (\meta pss prothumias\). Old word from \prothumos\ (\pro, thumos\) and means eagerness, rushing forward. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:8:11-19; strkjv@9:2|. In Thessalonica many of the Jews out of pride and prejudice refused to listen. Here the Jews joyfully welcomed the two Jewish visitors. {Examining the Scriptures daily} (\kath' hmeran anakrinontes tas graphas\). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new interpretation, examined (\anakrin\ means to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in strkjv@Acts:4:9; strkjv@12:19|, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating. {Whether these things were so} (\ei echoi tauta houts\). Literally, "if these things had it thus." The present optative in the indirect question represents an original present indicative as in strkjv@Luke:1:29| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1043f.). This use of \ei\ with the optative may be looked at as the condition of the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of determination) as in strkjv@Acts:17:27; strkjv@20:16; strkjv@24:19; strkjv@27:12| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). The Beroeans were eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude. Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).

rwp@Acts:21:18 @{The day following} (\ti epiousi\). As in strkjv@20:15| which see. {Went in} (\eisiei\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts:3:3; strkjv@21:18,26; strkjv@Hebrews:9:6|), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial _Koin_ use of \eiserchomai\. Together with us to James (\sun hmin pros Iakbon\). Songs:then Luke is present. The next use of "we" is in strkjv@27:1| when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness's story (21:30,35,40; strkjv@22:2,3; strkjv@23:12|, etc.). It was probably the house of James (\pros\ and \para\ so used often). {And all the elders were present} (\pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi\). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:24:7 @This whole verse with some words at the end of verse 6| and the beginning of verse 8| in the Textus Receptus ("And would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee") is absent from Aleph A B H L P 61 (many other cursives) Sahidic Bohairic. It is beyond doubt a later addition to the incomplete report of the speech of Tertullus. As the Revised Version stands, verse 8| connects with verse 6|. The motive of the added words is clearly to prejudice Felix against Lysias and they contradict the record in strkjv@Acts:21|. Furneaux holds them to be genuine and omitted because contradictory to strkjv@Acts:21|. More likely they are a clumsy attempt to complete the speech of Tertullus.

rwp@John:8:27 @{They perceived not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. "Preoccupied as they were with thoughts of an earthly deliverer" (Westcott) and prejudiced against recognizing Jesus as the one sent from God. {That he spake to them of the Father} (\hoti ton patera autois elegen\). Indirect assertion, but with the present indicative (\legei\) changed to the imperfect (\elegen\) as was sometimes done (2:25|) after a secondary tense.

rwp@John:8:46 @{Which of you convicteth me of sin?} (\Tis ex humn elegchei me peri hamaritas;\). See on strkjv@3:20; strkjv@16:8| (the work of the Holy Spirit) for \elegch\ for charge and proof. The use of \hamartia\ as in strkjv@1:29| means sin in general, not particular sins. The rhetorical question which receives no answer involves sinlessness (Hebrews:4:15|) without specifically saying so. Bernard suggests that Jesus paused after this pungent question before going on. {Why do ye not believe me?} (\Dia ti humeis ou pisteuete moi;\). This question drives home the irrationality of their hostility to Jesus. It was based on prejudice and predilection.

rwp@Luke:5:39 @{The old is good} (\Hosea:palaios chrstos estin\). Songs:the best MSS. rather that \chrstoteros\, comparative (better). Westcott and Hort wrongly bracket the whole verse, though occurring in Aleph, B C L and most of the old documents. It is absent in D and some of the old Latin MSS. It is the philosophy of the obscurantist, that is here pictured by Christ. "The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change" (Plummer). This is Christ's picture of the reactionary Pharisees.

rwp@Luke:6:37 @{And judge not} (\kai m krinete\). \M\ and the present active imperative, forbidding the habit of criticism. The common verb \krin\, to separate, we have in our English words critic, criticism, criticize, discriminate. Jesus does not mean that we are not to form opinions, but not to form them rashly, unfairly, like our prejudice. {Ye shall not be judged} (\ou m krithte\). First aorist passive subjunctive with double negative ou \m\, strong negative. {Condemn not} (\m katadikazete\). To give judgment (\dik, dixaz\) against (\kata\) one. \M\ and present imperative. Either cease doing or do not have the habit of doing it. Old verb. {Ye shall not be condemned} (\ou m katadikasthte\). First aorist passive indicative again with the double negative. Censoriousness is a bad habit. {Release} (\apoluete\). Positive command the opposite of the censoriousness condemned.

rwp@Luke:10:37 @{On him} (\met' autou\). With him, more exactly. The lawyer saw the point and gave the correct answer, but he gulped at the word "Samaritan" and refused to say that. {Do thou} (\su poiei\). Emphasis on "thou." Would this Jewish lawyer act the neighbour to a Samaritan? This parable of the Good Samaritan has built the world's hospitals and, if understood and practised, will remove race prejudice, national hatred and war, class jealousy.

rwp@Mark:8:12 @{He sighed deeply in his spirit} (\anastenaxas ti pneumati\). The only instance of this compound in the N.T. though in the LXX. The uncompounded form occurs in strkjv@Mark:7:34| and it is common enough. The preposition \ana-\ intensifies the meaning of the verb (perfective use). "The sigh seemed to come, as we say, from the bottom of his heart, the Lord's human spirit was stirred to its depths" (Swete). Jesus resented the settled prejudice of the Pharisees (and now Sadducees also) against him and his work. {There shall no sign be given unto this generation} (\ei dothsetai ti genei tauti smeion\). strkjv@Matthew:16:4| has simply \ou dothsetai\, plain negative with the future passive indicative. Mark has \ei\ instead of \ou\, which is technically a conditional clause with the conclusion unexpressed (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024), really aposiopesis in imitation of the Hebrew use of \im\. This is the only instance in the N.T. except in quotations from the LXX (Hebrews:3:11; strkjv@4:3,5|). It is very common in the LXX. The rabbis were splitting hairs over the miracles of Jesus as having a possible natural explanation (as some critics do today) even if by the power of Beelzebub, and those not of the sky (from heaven) which would be manifested from God. Songs:they put up this fantastic test to Jesus which he deeply resents. strkjv@Matthew:16:4| adds "but the sign of Jonah" mentioned already by Jesus on a previous occasion (Matthew:12:39-41|) at more length and to be mentioned again (Luke:11:32|). But the mention of the sign of Jonah was "an absolute refusal of signs in their sense" (Bruce). And when he did rise from the dead on the third day, the Sanhedrin refused to be convinced (see Acts 3 to 5).

rwp@Mark:9:32 @{But they understood not the saying} (\hoi de gnooun to rhma\). An old word. Chiefly in Paul's Epistles in the N.T. Imperfect tense. They continued not to understand. They were agnostics on the subject of the death and resurrection even after the Transfiguration experience. As they came down from the mountain they were puzzled again over the Master's allusion to his resurrection (Mark:9:10|). strkjv@Matthew:17:23| notes that "they were exceeding sorry" to hear Jesus talk this way again, but Mark adds that they "were afraid to ask him" (\ephobounto auton epertsai\). Continued to be afraid (imperfect tense), perhaps with a bitter memory of the term "Satan" hurled at Peter when he protested the other time when Jesus spoke of his death (Mark:8:33; strkjv@Matthew:16:23|). strkjv@Luke:9:45| explains that "it was concealed from them," probably partly by their own preconceived ideas and prejudices.

rwp@Mark:9:38 @{Because he followed not us} (\hoti ouk kolouthei hmin\). Note vivid imperfect tense again. John evidently thought to change the subject from the constraint and embarrassment caused by their dispute. Songs:he told about a case of extra zeal on his part expecting praise from Jesus. Perhaps what Jesus had just said in verse 37| raised a doubt in John's mind as to the propriety of his excessive narrowness. One needs to know the difference between loyalty to Jesus and stickling over one's own narrow prejudices.

rwp@Info_Matthew @ Matthew was in the habit of keeping accounts and it is quite possible that he took notes of the sayings of Jesus as he heard them. At any rate he gives much attention to the teachings of Jesus as, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters strkjv@Matthew:5-7|, the parables in strkjv@Matthew:13|, the denunciation of the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23|, the great eschatological discourse in strkjv@Matthew:24; 25|. As a publican in Galilee he was not a narrow Jew and so we do not expect a book prejudiced in favor of the Jews and against the Gentiles. He does seem to show that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation and hope and so makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament by way of confirmation and illustration. There is no narrow nationalism in Matthew. Jesus is both the Messiah of the Jews and the Saviour of the world.

rwp@Matthew:4:13 @{Dwelt in Capernaum} (\Katiksen eis Kapharnaoum\). He went first to Nazareth, his old home, but was rejected there (Luke:4:16-31|). In Capernaum (probably the modern \Tell Hm\) Jesus was in a large town, one of the centres of Galilean political and commercial life, a fishing mart, where many Gentiles came. Here the message of the kingdom would have a better chance than in Jerusalem with its ecclesiastical prejudices or in Nazareth with its local jealousies. Songs:Jesus "made his home" (\katiksen\) here.

rwp@Matthew:22:20 @{This image and superscription} (\h eikn haut kai h epigraph\). Probably a Roman coin because of the image (picture) on it. The earlier Herods avoided this practice because of Jewish prejudice, but the Tetrarch Philip introduced it on Jewish coins and he was followed by Herod Agrippa I. This coin was pretty certainly stamped in Rome with the image and name of Tiberius Caesar on it.

rwp@Matthew:27:22 @{What then shall I do unto Jesus which is called Christ?} (\ti oun pois Isoun ton legomenon Christon;\). They had asked for Barabbas under the tutelage of the Sanhedrin, but Pilate pressed home the problem of Jesus with the dim hope that they might ask for Jesus also. But they had learned their lesson. Some of the very people who shouted "Hosannah" on the Sunday morning of the Triumphal Entry now shout {Let him be crucified} (\staurtht\). The tide has now turned against Jesus, the hero of Sunday, now the condemned criminal of Friday. Such is popular favour. But all the while Pilate is shirking his own fearful responsibility and trying to hide his own weakness and injustice behind popular clamour and prejudice.

rwp@Matthew:27:25 @{His blood be upon us and upon our children} (\to haima autou kai epi ta tekna hmn\). These solemn words do show a consciousness that the Jewish people recognized their guilt and were even proud of it. But Pilate could not wash away his own guilt that easily. The water did not wash away the blood of Jesus from his hands any more than Lady Macbeth could wash away the blood-stains from her lily-white hands. One legend tells that in storms on Mt. Pilatus in Switzerland his ghost comes out and still washes his hands in the storm-clouds. There was guilt enough for Judas, for Caiaphas and for all the Sanhedrin both Sadducees and Pharisees, for the Jewish people as a whole (\pas ho laos\), and for Pilate. At bottom the sins of all of us nailed Jesus to the Cross. This language is no excuse for race hatred today, but it helps explain the sensitiveness between Jew and Christians on this subject. And Jews today approach the subject of the Cross with a certain amount of prejudice.

rwp@Romans:10:20 @{Is very bold} (\apotolmi\). Present active indicative of \apotolma\, old word, to assume boldness (\apo\, off) and only here in N.T. Isaiah "breaks out boldly" (Gifford). Paul cites strkjv@Isaiah:65:1| in support of his own courage against the prejudice of the Jews. See strkjv@9:30-33| for illustration of this point. {I was found} (\heurethn\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk\.